Judgments
of criminal culpability often are influenced by factors unrelated to case
content, such as the emotionality of the victim and the personality of the
judge. In the current study, we investigated the relationship between
psychopathic traits (high/low) and information processing modes (experiential
vs. rational) in a group of mock jurors (N = 383) asked to judge a “he said, she said” ambiguous case of sexual assault
that varied according to both victim and defendant emotionality (high/low). The
results demonstrated that victim and defendant emotionality was critical in
determining case outcomes, which interacted with the processing style that
participants utilized more. Specifically, experiential processors were more
punitive towards the defendant when the defendant displayed low levels of
emotion relative to high emotionality, whereas rational processors were
slightly more punitive when high levels of emotion were being displayed.
Psychopathic traits had no influence on ratings of veracity/credibility of the
victim and defendant, or on overall guilt determinations and severity of
sentencing. However, participants high in psychopathic traits believed that the
alleged victim was making a false allegation more often when she was less
emotional, and they were less punitive towards the false allegation than
individuals low in psychopathic traits. These findings have important
implications concerning how cases of sexual assault are interpreted in court,
and extra-legal factors that may alter case outcomes.

Lieberman, J. D. (2002). Head over the Heart or Heart over the Head? Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory and Extralegal Heuristics in Juror Decision Making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2526-2553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02755.x

Wilson, K., Demetrioff, S., & Porter, S. (2008). A Pawn by Any Other Name? Social Information Processing as a Function of Psychopathic Traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1651-1656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.006